UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[Hannibal]

Will we take both Smith and Isaac?

Orndoff has an MSU offer too. Seems like a decent plan B guy.

I guess now I'm secretly hoping that some of our "buried on the depth chart" guys at TE/H-back will see the writing on the wall and open up a scholarship.

[WM Wolverine]

I think its one or the other in the eyes of the coaches (obviously they prefer Isaac), which I disagree with as I don't like the RB's in two classes previous and would gladly take both and move Shallman to H-Back/TE...

H-Back situation is crowded more because of position switches than the coaches over recruiting it. Some guys on scholarship got moved there or TE because they lost ground on the depth chart at the position they were at... H-Backs that Hoke recruited: just Funchess, Khalid Hill; M shouldn't need one in '14...

Not recruiting FB's, TE's since '08 basically has forced Hoke to move a lot of questionable guys from other positions (Hopkins, Paskorz, R Miller) to those spots and over-recruit those spots to get the talent there that is needed. Like you said, those guys will sort themselves out but it won't be soon.

[Hannibal]

I can't see Shallman staying on offense. I just can't. We already have a scholarship fullback, a big tailback (Hopkins), and craploads of TEs and H-backs.

IMHO this is why Hoke made a mistake giving out some really questionable offers when he arrived on campus (and I said so at the time). There are guys like Tamani Carter and Keith Heitzman who are probably never going to see the field, and in the last couple of years we have shut the door for 4* guys like Ethan Pocic and Tommy Schutt. It looks like we are going to do the same with a blue chip linebacker this year too.

[WM Wolverine]

Missed reports on Shallman's ability as a defensive end though most liked his potential there.

[hack]

There's not gonna be 85 4*s -- that is not a sustainable roster. You need depth guys, and you need to be picking the right 4*s. No whiffs.

[Hannibal]

That's true, but I'd rather not be turning away blue-chippers because there are guys on the roster taking up schollies and not contributing.

[SeattleLionsFan]

WM I thought I read the coaches would gladly take both Smith and Isaac, but they both want to be the only RB in the class.

[Hannibal]

Is Smith underrated? Rivals doesn't have him as a 4*. He's got a peculiar offer list (UM, OSU, then...Indiana?)

[hack]

Smith is one of those guys that is going to one or the other and so others don't bother, I thought?

[hack]

That's true, but I'd rather not be turning away blue-chippers because there are guys on the roster taking up schollies and not contributing.

But you're not gonna have 85 contributors in the sense that they play during games and make good plays. You need guys that want to contribute by being depth and practicing hard, etc.

[Hannibal]

Yeah, you need some glue guys and the occasional Zak Novak or Jordan Kovacs type. I'm not sure that you want to purposely plan on having them though. I think that a 3* guy is just as likely to lack desire as a 4* guy, and you've got to load up your roster with as many 4* and 5* guys as possible, knowing that some will be lazy (Justin Turner), some will be overrated (Will Campbell), and some will work their asses off (Mike Martin and Denard Robinson). You've also got to have some roster balance, something that we haven't had in a long, long time, and it still looks like we are struggling to find.

[hack]

A lot of you know better than me but in that situation you'd start getting an alarming attrition rate. Sure it's fine if you lose a few players to transfers a year, and even if they take the high road they are still guys that are frustrated during the season and as young people many will react immaturely. You gotta have buy-in. Can you have it with a sink-or-swim roster of 4*s? My suspicion is that you need some players who are content with being depth -- they want to be at Michigan for whatever reasons (and there are many) and love being on a Michigan team more than they want playing time.

Of course with anything it's a matter of striking a balance.

[Da Geezer]

A nice "problem" to have.

[WM Wolverine]

I obviously meant 'mixed' reports on Shallman as a defensive end...

SLF - There was no report from the coaches (they aren't even allowed to talk about recruits), what you read was one insiders opinion. That opinion (that they'd take both Smith and Isaac) was asked to a coach that same day and was told a different answer... The running back situation is probably going to work itself out relatively soon, Isaac is going to decide very shortly after his visit to USC and M will turn up the heat on DeVeon Smith if they are shot down...

re: DeVeon Smith - I like him a lot, similar to say Fitzgerald Toussaint but maybe a touch more explosive. Worthy of a 4th star imo...

Those 'issues' (too many 4-star LB'ers or whatever) work themselves out, if you have that sort of talent on the 2-deep that allows you to redshirt incoming true freshman; you've just set yourself to get 5 years of a kid instead of 4. Even then, if you put the best players on the field, the talented reserve is the one whose transferring and opening up a spot for another recruit.

[hack]

Again, speculation, but it's one thing to have 1 or 2 frustrated and talented reserves. If you have 15+, then you have the potential for trouble. You have kids who want to be on the field and react poorly when they aren't. You risk team cohesion, unity, etc. Again -- I'm just guessing. Maybe it's not. What about Saban's Alabama? How many 4*s are on that roster? Is there a team out there comprised of only elite players? I doubt it.